COMM. 012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

s • PRESENTATION TO THE CHARTER COMMISSION Page 2 (Explain by chart powers and responsibilities of Commission, Adjudication Board and Director of Department. ) As far as recommendations are concerned, I would like to make the following comments. I have worked under the two existing systems of liquor control in the State of Hawaii (explain Kauai and Honolulu vs. Hawaii and Maui) . Having worked under both systems, I would like to recommend that the present organizational system be retained, that is, the separation of the liquor commission and the liquor control adjudication board. My reasons are three-fold: 1. The principle of the separation of powers . I have a strong preference for the principle of the separation of powers namely, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. I believe in a system where the legislative body makes the laws, where the executive body carries out the laws , and where the judicial body decides whether the laws have been violated or not. Such a division prevents a concentration of powers in any one body. Our department deals with one special group-- the liquor licensees. The department through its liquor commission decides who is able to receive a liquor license and the department through its adjudication board metes out punishment to any licensee who violates our laws. A liquor license involves a right to make a living. Therefore, a licensee should have the right to defend himself before an impartial body separate from a body which enacts the laws. An adjudication board, separate in itself, incorporates the principle of the separation of powers and the system of check and balance. 2 . The factor of cost. As far as cost is concerned, the cost of operating the adjudication board is , in my opinion, minimal. The average cost of a meeting is less than $80, and the cost is mostly in mileage payments. Also, the number of hearings has been reduced by half because the present board has set up a system which reduces two hearings into one. Formerly, the board set up an arraignment hearing where the licensee appeared to admit or deny the charge of an alleged violation. If the licensee denied the charge, another hearing was scheduled--a contested hearing. The new system of filing an Accusation and Complaint permits a licensee to have three alternatives: (1) To admit to the charge and presence not required at hearing, (2) To admit to the charge but request an informal hearing to explain the circumstances which led to the violation, and (3) to deny the charge and request a formal hearing.